Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    Comparative Study of Precast Super Girder vs. Cast-in-Place Box

    Uploaded by

    Sulaim Al Kautsar
    This document compares precast super girder bridges to cast-in-place box girder bridges. It discusses the design, layout, construction, seismic continuity, and cost analysis of a 175-foot long precast super girder bridge. Precast super girders can achieve similar design strength and serviceability as cast-in-place box girders but with potentially significant cost and schedule savings due to the use of precast elements and accelerated construction. Testing has shown that precast super girders with threaded rod continuity provide effective seismic load transfer between girders.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Comparative Study of Precast Super Girder vs. Cast-in-Place Box

    Uploaded by

    Sulaim Al Kautsar
    41 views48 pages
    This document compares precast super girder bridges to cast-in-place box girder bridges. It discusses the design, layout, construction, seismic continuity, and cost analysis of a 175-foot long precast super girder bridge. Precast super girders can achieve similar design strength and serviceability as cast-in-place box girders but with potentially significant cost and schedule savings due to the use of precast elements and accelerated construction. Testing has shown that precast super girders with threaded rod continuity provide effective seismic load transfer between girders.

    Original Description:

    mn

    Original Title

    2008-07

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document compares precast super girder bridges to cast-in-place box girder bridges. It discusses the design, layout, construction, seismic continuity, and cost analysis of a 175-foot long precast super girder bridge. Precast super girders can achieve similar design strength and serviceability as cast-in-place box girders but with potentially significant cost and schedule savings due to the use of precast elements and accelerated construction. Testing has shown that precast super girders with threaded rod continuity provide effective seismic load transfer between girders.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    41 views48 pages

    Comparative Study of Precast Super Girder vs. Cast-in-Place Box

    Uploaded by

    Sulaim Al Kautsar
    This document compares precast super girder bridges to cast-in-place box girder bridges. It discusses the design, layout, construction, seismic continuity, and cost analysis of a 175-foot long precast super girder bridge. Precast super girders can achieve similar design strength and serviceability as cast-in-place box girders but with potentially significant cost and schedule savings due to the use of precast elements and accelerated construction. Testing has shown that precast super girders with threaded rod continuity provide effective seismic load transfer between girders.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 48

    Comparative Study of Precast Super Girder vs.

    Cast-in-Place Box
    15th Annual Caltrans/PCMAC Bridge Seminar Jay Holombo, PBS&J Maher Tadros, PBS&J & UNL Sami Megally, PBS&J

    Acknowledgements
    Funded by PCMAC Caltrans Technology Committee Producer and Industry Members University of Nebraska, Lincoln (UNL)

    Outline
    1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Design Example Layout Super Girder Design Threaded Rod Continuity Bent Details Seismic Continuity Cost and Schedule

    Layout

    Layout

    Flexural pin

    Layout

    Approach Slab Integral

    Layout Summary Span = 175 ft D/S = 0.04 Girder spacing = 12 ft (1.7 D) Integral abutments Seismic continuity at piers

    Super Girder
    Up to 70 strands WWR Long span capability Can be P/T

    220

    200

    72 in. Super Girder

    72 in. Super Girder with Threaded Rod

    180 170 ft Span


    Span length (ft)

    160

    72 in. Bulb-Tee 140

    120

    100 6 7 8 9
    Girder spacing (ft)

    10

    10.7 ft

    11

    12

    10

    FDOT Adopts New I-Beam

    11

    Super Girder

    12

    Super Girder

    13

    14

    First Bridge: Pacific Street Bridge over I-680, Omaha, NE 10 NU900 girders spaced 10 ft -8 in
    30-0.7 in straight strands spaced 2 in horizontally and 2.5 in vertically. Two spans 98 ft each with TR continuity Opened to traffic in August 2008 D/S = 0.038

    15

    Type Selection

    16

    Threaded Rod Continuity

    17

    Threaded Rod Continuity Internal

    18

    Threaded Rod Continuity - External

    19

    Threaded Rod Validation Testing

    20

    Threaded Rod Continuity

    21

    Deck Weight Only


    6000 5000 Moment resistance fs = 54 ksi ld = 5 ft

    4000

    3000

    2000 Moment (k-ft)

    1000

    0 0 -1000 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Distance from CL Bent (ft)

    -2000 Deck weight moment demand -3000

    22
    -4000

    Service III Moments


    10000

    5000

    Threaded Rod Non-Continuous

    Moment (k-ft)

    0 0 -5000 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

    -10000

    -15000

    10% Difference
    23

    Bent Cap

    24

    Bent Cap

    25

    Bent Cap

    26

    Bent Cap
    Shear friction transfer = 1.0 Vu = 930 kip (Strength II)

    P/S strand

    Vn = 0.85(1.0)(15.8(120)+12.7(60)+2.6(243)) = 2800 kip


    Rods Deck reinf.

    27

    Seismic Connection
    Experimental results: unstressed strands UCSD 1998 (SSRP 98/05) Missouri U. 1974 (Salmons, FHWA 72-2) U. Nebraska 2002 (Tadros et al, PCI Journal, 2002)

    28

    29

    30

    UCSD

    31

    Missouri U.

    32

    U. Missouri

    33

    U. Nebraska

    34

    Cost Analysis

    35

    CIP Box Alternative

    36

    Super Girder Unit Prices PRICE ($) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) FURNISH CONCRETE PILING (ABUTMENT) DRIVE CONCRETE PILING (ABUTMENT) FURNISH CONCRETE PILING (BENT) DRIVE CONCRETE PILING (BENTS) FURNISH PC/PS CONCRETE SG I-GIRDERS ERECT PC/PS CONCRETE GIRDERS STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE (FOOTING) STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, APPROACH SLAB BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) CONCRETE BARRIER JOINT SEAL HS RODS 37 70 150 50 2000 60 2500 58000 10000 600 450 620 1 150 100 10.5 UNIT CY CY LF EA LF EA EA EA CY CY CY LB LF LF LF

    CIP Box Girder Unit Prices PRICE ($) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) FURNISH CONCRETE PILING (ABUTMENT) INSTALL CONCRETE PILING (ABUTMENT) FURNISH CONCRETE PILING (BENT) DRIVE CONCRETE PILING (BENTS) STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE (FOOTING) STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, APPROACH SLAB BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) PRESTRESSING, CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE BARRIER JOINT SEAL 70 150 50 2000 60 2500 700 450 620 1 2 150 100 UNIT CY CY LF EA LF EA CY CY CY LB LB LF LF

    38

    Cost Comparison by Component

    Item Superstructure Substructure Other* Total

    Super G $2,034,000 $770,000 $398,000 $3,202,000

    CIP Box $2,515,000 $1,055,000 $304,000 $3,874,000

    CIP/Super G 1.24 1.37 0.76 1.21

    *Includes approach slab, concrete barriers and joint seal

    39

    40

    Summary
    Super Girder HPC Wide range of application D/S ratios equivalent to CIP Box Monolithic seismic connections Significant cost and schedule savings

    41

    Where to next?
    Develop cost-effective standards Contract flexibility Workshops with GEC Precast full-depth deck

    42

    43

    44

    45

    46

    Completed deck Requires grinding Improved durability

    47

    NU 2800 (9.25 ft) 213 ft Shipped in Calgary

    48

    You might also like